Why Shouldn't I Ban "Come and Get It"?

[drachasor]

Yep, that's a tough one. I'd probably just hand wave it and move on, since the fighter could have just charged and gotten that same basic attack with a +1 to hit, but wanted (for whatever flavor or tactical reasons) to be a badass while doing it. I'd pity the wizard for letting himself get that close to a fighter without anything stopping the guy from unloading on him, and I'd hope the wizard had something up his sleeve (like Shield or Expeditious Retreat) to get him out of there.

I definitely wouldn't ban an entire power because of a few corner cases.

Oh I wouldn't (and won't) ban it either. Btw, it is much worse if there are two or three wizards in the scenario (or archers, really). Using the power itself doesn't make much sense if you only use it on one person, after all.

 

[James McMurray]

True. If it happened a lot (i.e. more than once) we might chat about adding the Charm keyword to it. I've yet to see a fight where that would happen though. Generally any ranged opponents are spread out far enough they can't be nuked all at once and/or behind cover and difficult terrain.

 

[Lizard]

The problem is one of personal preference. For some people, it just doesn't feel right to have a power like this used on their character. If you are gaming with those people and they have communicated that preference in an appropriate manner, it seems reasonable to respect their wishes or, at least, to work out a compromise of some sort.

And all of the other dozens of 4e powers which move characters against their will? The PCs shuffle the monsters all over the board; the monsters shove ineffectually against the PCs? If you don't like Things Happening To Your Character, maybe you shouldn't play 4e...

I just don't get this attitude. It goes back to Special Snowflakism, the bane of any gaming group. Why not just complain "The monsters can KILL my character, and I don't want him to die!"?

I expect players to "buy in" to the rules of the universe as expressed through the rules of the game.

DM:"The orc warlord says cruel things about your mother. You feel compelled to run up and kick him in the nuts!"
Good player:"I scream 'You take that back!' and charge in."
Bad player:"I don't! And you can't make me!"

 

[Maximillian]

I can't get a look at the rules from my desk here, but there is an attack roll associated with this right? I assume one against will? It's going to be harder for the fighter to affect most wizard and artillery types than minions and brutes, if that's the case.

Also, kudos to Tony Vargas for that series of examples. If you can consistently describe the situation that well, I can't see any reason why the players in the game should have any cognitive dissonance.

 

[Marnak]

I can't get a look at the rules from my desk here, but there is an attack roll associated with this right? I assume one against will? It's going to be harder for the fighter to affect most wizard and artillery types than minions and brutes, if that's the case.

Also, kudos to Tony Vargas for that series of examples. If you can consistently describe the situation that well, I can't see any reason why the players in the game should have any cognitive dissonance.

Nope. No attack roll against Will in RAW. There is an attack roll after they move adjacent but not one to make them move adjacent.

Marnak.

 

[drachasor]

Oh, one last point. I don't recall if this is an encounter or a daily power, but, either way, the fact that you can't use it all the time can be seen as reflecting the fact that it's not the kind of thing that always, or even often, works. The fighter can't go playing the same trick again on the enemies he just suckered with it.

So two common objections to encounter/daily exploits ("how can he do that?" and "why can't he do it again?") can be seen as somewhat cancelling eachother out.

Yeah, but if that sort of thing has been done to you before, then you think you might be wise to it. Especially if your Will Defense is quite high.

Honestly, I am somewhat tempted to make it a Strength vs. Will with a secondary attack. I am worried that would make it too weak, however. Even if it was made to automatically work on minions but require an attack on others, it might still be too weak. Perhaps such an attack on anyone who isn't wielding a melee weapon they are proficient in. I'll have to ponder this and look at the math some more. I suppose my inclination is to make it automatically work on minions and require the attack on will for anyone else.

In short, I don't mind tricking people, that's good stuff even on PCs, but making the trick automatically work when it goes against the very nature of a class/target (like a wizard) is a bit odd.

 

[Maximillian]

Nope. No attack roll against Will in RAW. There is an attack roll after they move adjacent but not one to make them move adjacent.

Wow. Yeah, I'm gonna be looking into this one tonight. At the moment, I can't think of any other power that forces movement without an attack roll... Am I wrong?

 

[jamorea]

Own The Battlefield - Warlord Utility 22 does the same thing Max.

 

[Victim]

Wow. Yeah, I'm gonna be looking into this one tonight. At the moment, I can't think of any other power that forces movement without an attack roll... Am I wrong?

Rogue 9: Deadly Positioning
Warlord 22: Own the Battlefield
Iron Vanguard 12: Inexorable Shift

 

[Zurai]

Note also that it's entirely possible that some enemies won't be affected by the attack.

How?

Only enemies that can end adjacent to the fighter move. The DM decides what order enemies move in. He's entirely justified to have all the minions/soldiers/brutes charge in first and leave no room for the artillery/lurkers to end adjacent to the Fighter.